BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p.

057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

OPTIMIZATION OF CHARACTERISTIC PROPERTIES OF FOAM-BASED

DRILLING FLUIDS
a

Saxena, A.; a Pathak, A. K.; a Ojha, K. 1

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India

ABSTRACT
In recent times, drillers all over the world are encountering highly fractured or matured reservoirs.
Conventional drilling techniques are failing to drill efficiently and economically, causing problems of
formation damage, lost circulation etc. With increasing energy demands, the industry requires to develop
new techniques that can exploit these formations effectively and minimize the problems associated with
conventional drilling. In-depth investigations over the years established that underbalanced drilling with
foam fluid could be one of the best possible solutions for efficient production from these reservoirs. They
have high viscosity and high cutting carrying capability with unusually low density. However, little is
known about their rheology, stability and hydrodynamics in dynamic bottomhole conditions, rendering
their use difficult in drilling operations. The present work focused on the study of various rheological and
stabilization aspects of foam-based drilling fluids for different surfactant and polymer combinations. An
optimized combination was predicted for surfactants and polymers which helps in the modeling of
different foam hydraulics parameters of the drilling fluids.

KEYWORDS
foam; polymer; surfactant; drilling fluid; stability; viscosity; optimization

To whom all correspondence should be addressed.

Address: Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India
Telephone: +91 326-2235484 |e-mail: keka_ojha@yahoo.com; amitsaxenaism@gmail.com; akhilendra_pathak@yahoo.co.in
doi:10.5419/bjpg2014-0005

57

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

1. INTRODUCTION
Special physical characteristics of aqueous
foams render them excellent candidates as drilling
fluids for geothermal formations and coalbed
methane reservoirs, as well as those that are highly
sensitive towards formation damage. Aerated
drilling fluids are being used in drilling technology
since the mid of 1930s, though the first engineering
discussions on an aerated drilling mud was
published in 1953 (Bobo & Barrett, 1953).
According to Negrao et al. (1999), Ozbayoglu et al.
(2002) and Saintpere et al. (1999), aqueous foam,
which is a special class of aerated fluid, has been
used in drilling operations since 1975. Foam, which
is a cluster of gas bubbles dispersed in a liquid
continuum, is comprised of water or brine and
surface-active agents, i.e. surfactants. Foam fluids
generally consist of 540 % of the liquid phase and
9560 % of the gaseous phase. Edrisi (2012)
observed that addition of various additives such as
polymers, gels and other chemicals to the system
can enhance its properties and stability.
According to Negrao et al. (1999), foam-based
drilling fluids are capable of mitigating various
problems encountered in matured and fractured
reservoirs, like formation damage and lost
circulation, which is otherwise very difficult by
using conventional techniques. Foam drilling fluids
can also prevent differential sticking and can
enhance the hydrocarbon production rates by
alleviating the near wellbore formation damage.
High viscosity combined with characteristically low
density makes the foam as an inevitable candidate
for todays complex drilling operations. Because of
these exceptional properties, foam could promote
good cutting transport with increased rate of
penetration and decreased fluid loss (Bonilla et al.,
2000; Darley, 2011; Machado & Ikoku, 1982; Wan,
2010). Foam is a non-Newtonian pseudo-plastic
fluid and its viscosity is much higher than the
viscosity of its individual constituents (Herzhafta,
2005). Studies show that its specific gravity usually
lies in the range 0.2 to 0.7 (Darley et al., 2011;
Wan et al., 2010). Like any other drilling fluids,
foam picks up cuttings from the bottom of the hole
and transfers them back to the surface through the
annulus between drill pipes and the bore hole (Li,
2009). However, the high sensitivity of foam
rheology to pressure and temperature conditions
and its compressible nature makes the job difficult
and unpredictable.

58

Thus, knowledge of rheology is the key to

control the entire drilling operations (Sanghani,
1983; Weaire, 2008), and becomes the main
constraint behind its restricted utilization.
According to Darley (2011), a number of
rheological models have also been developed by
many investigators. However, these models are
very much system-specific and thus unable to
describe general foam rheology accurately. The
proposed investigation focuses on the rheological
behaviors of foams composed of various
surfactants and polymers in the presence of salts.
Various parameters like viscosity, gel strength,
foam stability and behavior index have been
studied in detail.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Materials
Different chemicals used for the present
investigation were of high purity (> 99.5 %) and
used without further treatment. Anionic surfactant
SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate) was purchased from
Fisher
Scientific,
Mumbai,
India.
CTAB
(Cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide), which is a
cationic surfactant, was purchased from Acros
Organic, Geel Belgium. The polymer Hydroxy Ethyl
Cellulose (HEC) used in the present study was
acquired from Otto Kemi, Mumbai, India.

2.2 Methods
2.2.1 Preparation of foam fluid
Foam was prepared in 200 mL of brine solution
at varying polymer and surfactant concentrations.
First, 1 % (by wt) KCl was dissolved in distilled
water and then the required amount of surfactants
and polymers were mixed to this brine solution at
predetermined weight. The mixture was then
stirred for 5 minutes with the help of a mechanical
stirrer at a controlled speed of 200 rpm to make it
homogeneous. In the next step, the speed of the
stirrer was increased to 4000 rpm and maintained
at this level for some time until the desired quality
of foam was obtained. According to Gumati (2011),
the desired range of the foam quality generally lies
within 70 % and 90 %. Figure 1 describes the steps
of the foam preparation process. The temperature
of the system was maintained at 30 C for the
entire study.

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

2.2.3 Determination of gel strength and

viscosity
A Fann VG viscometer (Model 35 SA) with the
ability to perform assays at six different speeds,
ranging from 3 rpm to 600 rpm, was used in the
determination of foam viscosity and gel strength.
To select the desired speed, the switch located on
the right side of the base was set to the high or low
speed position as desired. Then the motor was
turned on and the viscometer gear shift knob
located in the centre of the top of the instrument
was moved to its desired position. A total of 450
mL of foam was taken each time for the entire
study using this instrument.
Dial readings at 300 rpm and 600 rpm were
observed during the determination of apparent
viscosity, plastic viscosity, behavior index and
consistency index. Gel strengths were measured
first by stirring the sample thoroughly at 600 rpm
for 30 s, and then by turning off the motor for 10 s.
The dial readings were then noted after 10 s and 10
min while the cylinder speed was kept at 3 rpm.
The gel strength was reported in lb/100 sq-ft.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 1. Flowchart for preparation of foam.

2.2.2 Determination of half-life of foam

Half-life time, which indicates the stability of
foam and hence the working time (Rand, 1983;
Tyrode, 2003), was determined by observing the
change in height of foam with time.
Instantaneously prepared foam was poured in a
1000-mL measuring cylinder which was kept inside
a water bath maintained at 30 C. When exposed
to the local atmosphere, the bubbles start to
coalesce and the foam height starts decreasing.
The height of the foam was examined continuously
and the time at which the foam height was reduced
to its half was noted as the half-life time. The
thermal stability of foam was also investigated by
observing the change of foam quality as a function
of temperature.

Foam stability and rheology are to the two most

important properties of foam-based drilling fluids
which must be maintained at the desired value
within the wellbore during drilling operations. The
effects of base fluids compositions, i.e. polymer
concentration, surfactant concentrations, and the
effect of the ionic characteristics of surfactants and
temperature on the foam stability and rheology
were studied in detail and reported.

3.1 Foam stability

3.1.1 Effects of polymer and surfactant
concentrations on foam stability
Figures 2-9 describe the foaming ability and
foam stability of CTAB and SDS surfactants
separately with HEC polymer system. Surfactant
concentrations were varied from 0.1 % to 0.4 % by
wt. at different polymer dosing starting from 0.10
% to 0.40 % by wt. The height of the foam just after
completion of agitation shows the foaming ability
which was characterized by increased height of the
foamed slurries. The plots (Figure 2-Figure 9) show

59

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

14

0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
HEC, wt%

Height of Foam (cm)

13

12

11

10

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Figure 2. Effect of polymer concentration on foam stability for CTAB (0.1wt.%).

14.5

0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
HEC, by wt%

14.0

Height of Foam (cm)

13.5
13.0
12.5
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.5
10.0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (minutes)

Figure 3. Reduction in height of foam with time at different polymer concentration (0.1 wt. % SDS).
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
HEC, by wt%

14

Height of Foam (cm)

13

12

11

10

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (minutes)

Figure 4. Change in foam stability at varying polymer concentrations for 0.2 wt. % CTAB.

60

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

Figure 5. Decrease in foam height for different polymer concentration at 0.2 wt. % SDS.

Figure 6. Change in foam Stability at varying polymer concentrations for 0.3 wt. % CTAB.

Figure 7. Reduction in height of foam at for different polymer concentration at 0.3 wt. % SDS.

61

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

Figure 8. Effect of polymer concentration on foam stability for 0.4 wt. % CTAB.

Figure 9. Effect of polymer concentration on foam stability (0.4 wt. % SDS).

continuous reduction in foam height as a function

of idle time after the foaming process. The foams
collapse with time, causing decrease in height. It
could be observed from Figure 2 that there is
reduction of foam height of about 54 % and 84 %
after 190 minutes for HEC concentrations of 0.1 %
and 0.3 % respectively, which remained almost the
same up to 1000 min. However, in the case of SDS,
Figure 3 shows a reduction of 74 % and 83.3 % of
the initial foam height at HEC concentrations of 0.1
% and 0.25 % respectively, which then became
stable. For both surfactants, foam quality and
stability were found to be enhanced with increased
HEC concentrations up to an optimum value and
then started to fall. Similar results were observed

62

for different CTAB and HEC concentrations as

shown in Figures 4-9. The higher foaming capability
of SDS compared to CTAB may be due to better
binding of polymer unto the head group region of
SDS clusters (Winnik and Winnik, 1990). Similar
results were also observed by Tyrode et al.(2003)
and Wang and co-workers (2012).
According to Edrisi (2012), addition of polymer
increases the mechanical strength of the bubble
film, thereby reducing fluid drainage. However, the
presence of excess polymer may impair foam
formation, thereby causing reduction in foam
quality. After observing the plots of different
surfactant and polymer concentrations it could be
inferred that the optimized compositions are 0.4

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

Figure 10. Effect of CTAB concentration on stability of foam (0.3 wt. % HEC).

Figure 11. Effect of time on stability of foam (0.25 wt. % HEC).

wt.% CTAB + 0.3 wt.% HEC, and for that of SDS is

0.3 wt.% SDS + 0.25 wt.% HEC (Figure 10 and
Figure 11).

3.1.2 Thermal stability

Variation in foam quality at optimum polymer
and surfactant combinations were studied for the
temperature range 30 C 50 C, as shown in
Figure 12 and Figure 13. The foam stability was
found to decrease linearly with temperature.
Degradation in foam quality is mainly due to
expansion of gas within the foam at higher
temperature and the change in the kinetic energy
of molecules adsorbed on the surface of the bubble
film (Bera et al., 2013). The increased pressure

inside the bubbles combined with the randomness

of surfactant molecules in the bubble film
contribute significantly in breaking down the
bubble film.

3.2 Variation of apparent viscosity with

surfactant concentrations at different
concentrations of guar gum
Viscosity is an important parameter for cutting
transport and lubrication of drilling equipment,
when determining the efficiency of drilling fluids.
Variations in the viscosity of foam fluids with
variation in the polymer and surfactant
concentrations at various temperatures were

63

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

Figure 12. Thermal stability of foam as a function of temperature (0.4 g CTAB + 0.3 g HEC).

Figure 13. Stability of foam as a function of Temperature (0.3g SDS + 0.25g HEC).

investigated and the results are reported in Figures

14 and 15.
It is evident from Figures 14 and 15 that, for a
given concentration of surfactant, when the
polymer concentration is increased the viscosity of
the system increases initially, attains a maximum
and then starts to decrease. For both surfactants,
the viscosity is found to increase up to 0.2 wt. % in
polymer concentration, beyond which a rapid
decrease in the viscosity of the foam-based drilling
fluid is observed. However, for CTAB, a distinct
reduction in viscosity was observed when the
concentration was increased to 0.4 % (see Figure
14). A small reduction in the foam viscosity was

64

also observed (Figure 15) for SDS at 0.4 wt%

concentration. This erratic behavior can be
explained at the molecular level in terms of
interactions between the surfactant and polymer
molecules. According to Hoff et al. (2001) and
Janiaud et al. (2007), the magnitude of the foam
viscosity is primarily due to interfacial tensions
between the bubble films within the foam. At
lower concentrations, the polymer enhances the
viscosity of the foam-based drilling fluid by
contributing to the viscosity of the base fluid. The
viscosity of non-ionic polymer is found to be
enhanced by the addition of an anionic surfactant
(Anthony and Zana, 1994; Mylonas et al., 1998;

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

Winnik and Winnik, 1990). The enhanced viscosity

is attributed to the adsorption of SDS molecules on
the HEC polymer chains and to the conformational
changes in the molecular chains that are induced
due to electrostatic forces. Sometimes when a
surfactant is introduced into the system, an initial
decrease in the viscosity of the system is observed
before it starts to increase. The decrease is
attributed to the shrinking of polymer chains due
to electrostatic forces between the hydrophobic
and hydrophilic tails of the surfactant molecule
adsorbed on the polymer chain. At low SDS
concentration, surfactant and polymer molecules
are dispersed in the system. As the concentration

of SDS is increased more clusters of smaller sizes

are formed. At low ionic strength the spacing
between micelles is attributed to the mutual
Columbic repulsion and their need to stick to the
polymer chain. Further increase in surfactant
concentration saturates the polymer chain. This
behavior is observed below the critical micelle
concentration (CMC) of the surfactant. At CMC, the
solution contains SDS micelles which interact like
bound clusters. The interfacial tension between the
films of the foam bubbles is then reduced.
According to Hirasaki (1985), Hohler (2005) and
Karakashev (2007), at higher viscosities it becomes
difficult to agitate the surfactant-polymer system.

Figure 14. Variation in apparent viscosity with changing polymer concentration for given CTAB concentration.

Figure 15. Variation in apparent viscosity with change in HEC concentration for a given SDS concentration.

65

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

Also, the water transport through films is impaired,

which hinders bubble coalescence. All these factors
contribute to the reduction in viscosity as the
polymer concentration exceeds a certain limiting
value. It is observed that when the concentrations
of surfactant exceed 0.3 wt. % the viscosity of the
system drops rapidly with increasing polymer
concentration.
The viscosity of polymer foams with cationic
surfactant is found to be less than that with SDS.
According to Anthony & Zana (1994), Mylonas et
al. (1998) and Wang et al. (1995), the interaction
between the cationic surfactant and nonionic

polymer is less dominant as compared to that with

an anionic surfactant. The suppressed interaction is
due to the larger head groups present on the
cationic surfactant chains, which inhibits their
penetration inside the micelle structure of the
cationic surfactant. This reduces the formation of
surfactant-polymer clusters. Therefore a reduced
interaction is observed as compared to the anionic
surfactant. Furthermore, overlap of the hydration
cells of polymer and surfactant head groups plays a
vital role in altering the properties of the
surfactant-polymer system.

Figure 16. Gel Strength of CTAB as a function of changing polymer concentration.

Figure 17. Gel Strength of SDS as a function of changing polymer concentration.

66

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

3.3 Variation of the gel strength of cationic

and anionic surfactants at given
polymer concentrations

tension and viscosity. In general, the higher the

interfacial tension and viscosity, the higher the gel
strength of the fluid will be.

Gel strength is a property of drilling fluids which

helps in the suspension of drill cutting in the fluids.
10 minutes gel strength of the foams with CTAB
and SDS surfactant are plotted in Figures 16 and 17
respectively. Similar to viscosity variation, gel
strength values are found to increase initially with
surfactant and polymer concentrations, reach a
maximum and then start to decrease. The gel
strength is a function of intermolecular forces,
which may be expressed in terms of interfacial

From Figures 16 and 17, it can be predicted that

the maximum 10-minute gel strength is observed
to vary between polymer concentrations of 0.10 to
0.25 wt. %. This rapid increase in gel strength is
because of the maximum interaction between the
bubbles of foam-based drilling fluids. As the
polymer concentration increases above 0.2 wt. %
there is a decrease in the gel strength of the
system due to saturation of polymer in the system
(Edrisi, 2012; Harris, 1996; Hutchins, 2005).
Therefore above this concentration no more

Figure 18. Behavior Index of foam for different CTAB and polymer concentration.

Figure 19. Behavior index of foam for different SDS and polymer concentration.

67

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

polymer molecules can be dissolved in the foambased drilling fluid. Up to 0.2 wt. % the polymer
increases the stability of the bubble film without
affecting the interaction between the foam
bubbles. Above 0.2 wt. % the polymer hinders the
interaction between the bubbles, thereby affecting
the gel strength of the system.

3.4 Foam rheology

The rheological properties of foam play an
important role in determining the cutting carrying
capability as well as wellbore hydraulics of foambased drilling fluids. According to Rabia (2001), the
power-law model given by Equation 1 relates the
shear tension () with the shear rate or the velocity
gradient perpendicular to the plane of shear
(du/dy, in s-1):
)
= K (du
dy

(1)

where K is the flow consistency index, and n is the

flow behavior index.
The value of behavior index indicates the
degree of non-Newtonian behavior over a given
shear rate range. For 'n' = 1, the behavior of the
fluid is considered to be Newtonian. As 'n'
decreases the behavior of the fluid is more nonNewtonian (pseudo plastic) and the viscosity will
decrease with an increase in shear rate. From
Figures 18 and 19, it is evident that for all
combinations the fluids show non-Newtonian or

pseudo plastic behavior (n < 1). The degree of

deviation from Newtonian behavior varies with the
foam fluid compositions. According to Bonilla
(2000) and Darley (2011), the decrease in the
behavior index in the initial stages shows the
increase in foam quality of the system at increased
polymer concentrations up to a certain value.
Above this concentration, the behavior of the
graph is inverted, as an effect of reduction in foam
quality, below which the rheological properties of
base fluid becomes dominant because of phase
separation.
The flow consistency index (K) is a measure of
the thickness of the fluid (Rabia, 2001). An increase
in the value of 'K' indicates an increase in the
overall hole cleaning effectiveness of the fluid. The
values of n and K are determined using
Equations 2 and 3, and their variation with respect
to surfactant and polymer concentrations are
shown in Figures 18-21:

= 3.32 log (600 )

300

300
511

(3)

Where:
600 is the dial reading of the Fann VG viscometer at
600 rpm.

Figure 20. Consistency Index variation with changing CTAB and polymer concentration.

68

(2)

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

Figure 21. Consistency Index variation with changing SDS and polymer concentration.

Table 1. Different rheological parameters at optimum combinations.

Gel strength
lb/100 ft2
10 sec
10 min

Composition

Plastic viscosity
(cp)

Apparent
viscosity (cp)

Yield point
lb/100 ft2

0.3g SDS + 0.25g

HEC

42.5

25

35

0.4 g CTAB + 0.3

g HEC

31.5

19

25

300 is the dial reading of the Fann VG viscometer at

300 rpm.
It could be observed from Figures 20 and 21
that, for the best possible combinations of CTAB
and SDS, i.e. 0.4 g CTAB + 0.3 g HEC, and 0.3 g SDS
+ 0.25 g HEC, the highest consistency indices are
obtained. So it can also be predicted that at this
concentration the foam obtained is the best in
terms of solid suspension and transport ability.
Therefore, the hole cleaning capacity is enhanced.
Table 1 summarises the main properties of the
foam fluids prepared at optimum concentrations.

4. CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the experimental results that
were conducted to examine the stability and
rheological behavior of the foam, the following

results can be inferred. The prepared foam fluids

showed good stability and foam quality at optimum
concentrations. Anionic surfactant SDS shows
better foam quality and stability compared to that
of cationic surfactant CTAB. In actual field
applications, anionic surfactants are also preferred
over
cationic
ones
because
of
their
environmentally friendly nature. Variation in
stability with temperature helps in determining the
operating temperature window for foam-based
drilling fluids. Also its variation in stability with time
helps in predicting the operational duration of
foam, i.e. the amount of time for which foam
maintains its minimum operating qualities. For
every surfactant and polymer combination there is
an optimum concentration which is needed to be
determined. It helps in the proper design of the
hydraulics of drilling fluids. For the present study,
the foam prepared at optimized condition showed
a half-life more that 1000 minutes with apparent
viscosity as low as 25 cP and 10-minute gel

69

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

strength of 8 lb/100 sq-ft. Furthermore, foambased drilling fluids are found to follow the powerlaw model of fluid flow, which is pseudo plastic in
nature. The values of plastic viscosity and the
apparent viscosity of the foam at optimum
compositions lie within the desirable range for
drilling fluids (Cheng et al., 1988), hence they are
applicable in downhole operating conditions. Thus,
the study aims to be helpful in determining the
optimum foam fluid compositions and its rheology
for
different
downhole
conditions
in
underbalanced drilling operations.

Edrisi, A. R.; Gajbhiye, R. N.; Kam, S. I.;

Experimental Study of Polymer-free and Polymeradded Foams for Underbalanced Drilling: Are Two
Foam-Flow Regimes Still There? SPE 162712, p. 122, 2012.
Gumati, A.; Takahshi, H. Experimental Study and
Modeling of Pressure Loss for Foam-Cuttings
Mixture Flow in Horizontal Pipe. Journal of
Hydrodynamics, v. 23, p. 431-438, 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(10)60133-3

Hani, Q.; Retalic, I. Do Advanced Drilling

Techniques Really Add Reserves and Enhance
Recovery?. SPE 167316, p. 1-10, 2013.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Harris, P.C.; Heath, S.J. Rheology of Cross-linked

Foams. SPE 28512, p. 113-116, 1996.

We greatly acknowledge NPIU and DST (No.

SERB/ET-0005/2013) for financial support. Thanks
are also extended to all the members associated
with the project.

Herzhaft, B. Rheology of Aqueous Foams: a

Literature Review of Some Experimental Works. Oil
& Gas Science and Technology, v. 54, p. 587-596,
1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.2516/ogst:1999050

5. REFERENCES

Herzhaft, B.; Kakadjian, S.; Moan M.

Measurement and Modelling of the Flow Behavior
of Aqueous Foams Using a Recirculating Pipe
Rheometer. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physico
chem. Eng. Aspects, v. 263, p. 153164, 2005.

Anthony, O.; Zana, R. Effect of Temperature on

the Interactions between Neutral Polymers and a
Cationic and a Nonionic Surfactant in Aqueous
Solutions. Langmuir, v. 10, p. 4048-4052, 1994.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/la00023a024

Bera, A.; Ojha, K.; Mandal A. Synergestic Effect

of Mixed Surfactant on Foam Behavior and Surface
Tension. Journal of surfactant and detergent, v.
16, p.621-630, 2013.
Bobo, R. A.; Barrett, H. M. Aeration of Drilling
Fluids. World Oil, v. 145 (4), 1953.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2005.01.012

Hirasaki, G.J.; Lawson, J .B. Mechanisms of Foam

Flow in Porous Media: Apparent Viscosity in
Smooth Capillaries. SPE Journal, v. 25, p. 176-190,
1985.
Hoff, E.; Nystrom, B.; Lindman, B. PolymerSurfactant Interactions in Dilute Mixtures of a
Nonionic Cellulose Derivative and an Anionic
Surfactant. Langmuir, v. 17, p. 28-34, 2001.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/la001175p

Bonilla, L. F.; Shah, S. N.; et al. Experimental

Investigation on the Rheology of Foams. SPE
59752, p. 1-14, 2000.

Hohler, R.; Addad, S. C. Rheology of Liquid

Foam. J. Phys.: Condensed Matter, V. 17, p. 1041
1069, 2005.

Cheng-Fa Lu; Carl A. Lukach, New Castle County,

Del.; Robert R. Pas, Earls Court, United Kingdom,
Carboxymethyl Guar Based Drilling Fluids. US
Patent, 4,743,384, 1988.

Hutchins, R. D.; Miller, M. J. A Circulating-Foam

Loop for Evaluating Foam at Conditions of Use. SPE
Production & Facilities, v. 20, p. 286-294, 2005.

Darley, H. C. H.; Gray, G. R.; Composition and

Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids. Gulf
Professional Publishing, 2011.

Janiaud, E.; Weaire, D.; Hutzler, S. A Simple

Continuum Model for the Dynamics of Quasi-Two
Dimensional Foam. Colloids and Surfaces A:
Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, v. 309, p. 125131,
2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2006.10.077

70

http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/80242-PA

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 8 n. 2 | p. 057-071 | 2014 | ISSN 1982-0593

Karakashev, S. I.; Nguyen, A. V. Effect of Sodium

Dodecyl Sulphate and Dodecanol Mixtures on
Foam Film Drainage: Examining Influence of
Surface Rheology and Intermolecular Forces.
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochem. Eng.
Aspects, v. 293, p. 229240, 2007.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2006.07.047

Li, S.; Li. Z.; et.al. Modeling of Sand Cleanout

with Foam Fluid for Vertical Well. SPE Journal, v.
15, p. 805-811, 2010.
Machado, C.; Ikoku, C. U. Experimental
Determination of Solids Fraction and Minimum
Volumetric Requirements in Air and Gas Drilling.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, p. 2645-2655,
November 1982.
Murai, N.; Makino, S.; Sugai, S. Interaction of
Surfactants with Non-ionizable Water-Soluble
Polypeptides. Journal of Colloid and Interface
Science, v. 41, p. 399-406, 1972.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(72)90363-3

Saintpere, S.; Herzhaft, B.; Abdoulaye, T.; Jollet,

S. Rheological Properties of Aqueous Foams for
Underbalanced Drilling. SPE 56633, p. 1-13, 1999.
Sanghani, V.; Ikoku, C.U. Rheology of Foam and
Its Implication in Drilling and Cleanout Operations.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology, p. 362371, 1983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.3230929
Tyrode, E.; Pizzino, A.; Rojasa, O.J. Foamabilty
and Foam Stability at High Pressures and
Temperatures. Review of Scientific Instruments, v.
74, p. 2925-2935, 2003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1569403

Wan, L. P.; Meng, Y. F.; Li, Y.; Wang, J.; Shu, X.;
Zeng, Q. The Study of the Circulation of Drilling
Foam. SPE 131068, p. 1-6, 2010.
Wang, G.; Olofsson, G. Ethyl (hydroxyethy1)
cellulose and Ionic Surfactants in Dilute Solution.
Calorimetric and Viscosity Study of the Interaction
with SDS and Some Cationic Surfactants. J Phys.
Chem., v. 99, p. 5588-5596, 1995.

Mylonas, Y.; Karayanni, K.; Staikos, G.

Investigation of Neutral Polymer-Ionic Surfactant
Interactions by Fluorescence in Conjunction with
Viscosity Measurements. Langmuir, v. 14, p. 63206322, 1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/la980546n

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/j100015a049

Negrao, A.F.; Lage, A.C.V.M.; Cunha J.C. An

Overview Of Air/Gas/Foam Drilling In Brazil, SPE
Drill. & Completion, v. 14, p. 109-114, 1999.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2012.08.028

Ozbayoglu, E.; Kuru, E.; Miska S. A Comparative

Study of Hydraulic Models for Foam Drilling.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, v. 41,
p. 1-10, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/02-06-05

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2007.11.004

Rabia, H. Well Engineering and Construction.

Entrac Consulting, UK, p. 197-235, 2001.

Wang, M.; Du, H.; Guo, A.; Hao, R.; Hou, Z.

Micro Structure Control in Ceramic Foams via
Mixed Cationic/Anionic Surfactant. Materials
Letters, v. 88, p. 97100, 2012.
Weaire, D. The Rheology of Foam. Colloid &
Interface Science, v. 13, p. 171176, 2008.
Winnik, F.M.; and Winnik, M.A. The Interaction
of Sodium Dodecylsulfate with (Hydroxypropyl)
Cellulose. Polymer Journal, v. 22 (6), p. 482-488,
1990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1295/polymj.22.482

Rand, P. B.; Kraynik, A. M. Drainage of Aqueous

Foams: Generation-Pressure and Cell-Size Effects.
SPE Journal, v., p. 152-154, 1983.

71